Should Methamphetamine be Legalized?

FTR,

You haven't been paying much attention to Ken's posts here lately, have you? All of his ideas are in the articles.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Ken,

Where is the constitutional amendment in the federal constitution that makes the "war on drugs" a legal activity for the federal government?

You raise a good point, but I, again, believe the "war on drugs" is a misnomer. There's no "war" to it. No, there won't be a dent in drug use as long as dealers get to cut their little deals, and get out on parole, or basically get winked at by the system. The choice is not between the present "war" and legalization. The other choice is to take drugs seriously. When the last appeal is concluded, march these vermin out to the square, put them on a gallows, and hang them. Or put them against a prison wall to face a firing squad. I don't care how rats are exterminated, just get rid of them.

It is anti-the principles of individual liberty on which our nation was founded.

Again, that's just ridiculous and ignorant of our history. I can understand a federalist argument against federal laws. I just don't get an individual "God given" liberty argument to sell drugs to children.

 

Ken,

Just wondering, ftr, if you are consistent and advocate that sexual relations between teenagers should be outlawed and that any transgressors should be executed or at least locked up in prison?

Another ridiculous "argument". Just because I favor a particular law doesn't mean that I favor public laws against every act I may disagree with. It is part of the democratic process to decide what acts should be prohibited. Those who sell drugs to children should be executed. The "logic" of your "point" is that I would agree with executing teenage fornicators. Maybe you need to go back to "from the article".

 

Ken,

Nor do I. That is a straw man, ftr, and I think you know it.

Maybe you need to go back and read KenH's post:

It's not my straw man, it's yours. Or do you disavow your own statement? Unless you'd rather clarify and explain that the above statement has nothing to do with a right, God-given or otherwise, to sell drugs.

 

Ken,

If the government can prohibit individual liberty in this area of personal drug use, then where does it stop in any area of individual liberty?

You have either misstated or misunderstood my position. Find the first statement of mine against personal drug use. It's wrong, but I don't believe that users should be executed. Those who sell that crap to children should be. Where does it stop? You make it sound like an inexorable slide. Do you think that just because people have the sense enough to want to execute drug dealers that they'll suddenly decide that wearing hats is wrong and start punishing hat-making and wearing? It's ridiculous.

 

The right to extend your arm ends at my nose.

You don't have the "right" to destroy my life; that's what meth does. People don't care about anything else. (Then, I'm forced to support them for the rest of their lives, but that's another discussion.)

Our freedoms are going away, and it's not for the reasons that most people think: At first, freedom is cherished; then it's worshipped; then it's subverted. And, it's all in the name of "freedom".

A woman has the "freedom" to choose what to do with her own body, but it's at the cost of another's life.

I agree with hanging manufacturers and dealers in the town square.

 

FTR,

You really must stop using logic with Ken. That just isn't fair since that is not in the article.

Joseph Botwinick

 

Ken,

My arguments are concerning those who have reached the age of majority.

That's clarification? Those who? Dealers? That dealers over the age of majority have an individual right? Again, I don't think you've read a word of my posts. I said execute those who sell drugs to minors.

Why not? Why are you inconsistent?

It's really a simple point. Drug dealers in general are vermin; those who sell to children should be put to death. Teenage fornicators don't cry out for capital punishment. Is that inconsistent? OK, then I'm inconsistent. I think it's just common sense, which those lack who can't see the distinction. Do you really have to have the distinction pointed out to you?

 

Hope of Glory,

Our freedoms are going away, and it's not for the reasons that most people think: At first, freedom is cherished; then it's worshipped; then it's subverted.

Wonderfully put. Freedom is wonderful and, yes, to be cherished, but that doesn't mean the "freedom" to do everything. The Founders understood that that is not liberty but license and licentiousness. Contrary to Ken and his article, the Founders did not worship such a perversion.

 

Only you can destroy your life by taking meth. No one is responsible but you. </font>[/QUOTE]Then you obviously haven't lived in meth or crack neighborhoods. Although we were in the process of trying to move, the murder in our front yard (that spilled over from the drug house down the street) was the straw that made us move out without anywhere else to go. Having to fire shots to protect my family was a big downer, as well. These were not isolated incidents.